Originally Posted by CameraGuy
It is my OPINION that the original wording was intended to fail, thus giving the appearance that there was an attempt at "transparency". If, in my OPINION "transparency" was the ultimate goal, then the wording would have been crystal clear that only new threads would be "transparent".
Let me get this straight: You are saying that Doc, who made the original motion, wanted it to fail and thus applied it to new "posts" instead of "threads".
Immediately after the first motion failed, Doc made a new one applying it to threads.
What was his motivation for the second motion?
Do you suspect that he tried to get his original motion to fail in a Machiavellian plot to ensure that the second motion would, indeed, pass?